Cleanse - why you are lucky they don't work

A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.

The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)

The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.

NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.

The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.

No. A law is a simple fact that exists universally It can be demonstrated with repeated successful testing, but it is not a former theory that has accumulated enough evidence to become "proven". That is a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Theories can become generally accepted when they have enough evidence behind them, but they never (or are they expected to) become laws. Both are informative and useful in science.

I reject your reality and substitute it with my own. A law cannot become a law until it begins as a theory "in principle". Dropping an apple or object repeatedly was at first a theory, then became a law, based on repeated, identical results. And I think calling it a "theory" now is a misnomer of epic proportions. A LAW is a LAW.

Of course, I'm still upset about the declassification of Pluto's planetary status - those rat *kitten*.

What I don't understand is... why go through it? Why put yourself, your mind and body through hell like cleanse? I have seen my friends try it, there was temporary results, nothing that lasted. And even the temporary results were kinda meh.

What is so bad about eating right, working out and enjoying your health? Why make yourself miserable all the time by eating only a specific food or by drinking certain juice?

i would postulate that some people suffer from a sort of mental illness where they feel that they need to do penance for allowing themselves to become overweight (or not eating clean, or eating too many sweets, or whatever their particular bogeyman may be). the cleanse process seems to achieve this result for their psyche and when they complete it, they feel as if they've done their penance and can now go on with their lives... so the cleanse does nothing for their body, but perhaps it clears away their guilty consciences.

What I don't understand is... why go through it? Why put yourself, your mind and body through hell like cleanse? I have seen my friends try it, there was temporary results, nothing that lasted. And even the temporary results were kinda meh.

What is so bad about eating right, working out and enjoying your health? Why make yourself miserable all the time by eating only a specific food or by drinking certain juice?

i would postulate that some people suffer from a sort of mental illness where they feel that they need to do penance for allowing themselves to become overweight (or not eating clean, or eating too many sweets, or whatever their particular bogeyman may be). the cleanse process seems to achieve this result for their psyche and when they complete it, they feel as if they've done their penance and can now go on with their lives... so the cleanse does nothing for their body, but perhaps it clears away their guilty consciences.

I have often wondered about this, and the same about other irrational dieting strategies.

I didn't understood most of it but I know you're awesome and now I know that we're awesome because our body automatically says to cleanses "Oh HEEELLLLLL NAWW!!!"

Keep on rocking Zyntx!

Agree to disagree. The detox diet I am currently on is the most life altering thing I had ever done.

It appears to me that this isn't an issue of agree or disagree. I could disagree with the concept that the earth revolves around the sun, but that wouldn't make it untrue. That it has had some positive effects on you doesn't change the fact that you are increasing your risk of cancer. You can choose to take that risk, but you can't just say the facts aren't the facts. The reality is that there are lots of things that feel good to us that aren't good for us.

I think the "detox" would only increase the risk of cancer if it actually did what it claims to do, which it does not (and those using them should be thankful for that). Am I misunderstanding the OP?

Gravity is but a myth invented by people who are too lazy to try to fly. We have all been brainwashed at birth to believe that we can't fly because of gravity, but if we work hard enough to get over this brainwashing, we can, in fact, fly.

Gravity is basically force at a distance, pfft!!! that breaks some laws of physics. And no scientist has yet been able to find any graviton particles.

Also, there's no such thing as light. Light is merely the absence of dark. Lights do not emit light, they suck dark. They appear brighter the closer you get to the light, because that's where they are sucking the most dark. If you don't believe me, then take a dead battery out of a torch and open it up. It's full of dark powder. That's all the dark that the torch has sucked. The battery dies because it's sucked too much dark. The sun may appear to be giving light, but it's actually an extremely efficient dark sucker. Space is mostly full of dark, but the area around stars appears to be brighter, because stars are such efficient dark suckers.

[/pseudoscience]

You just made my day!

Nobody has ever been able to answer this question: What is the speed of dark?

That's an interesting pdf - but it has some junk science that someone has either made up or misunderstood or over simplified.

Lets take arsenic - the liver does not just metabolize arsenic into water soluble compounds that are simply eliminated. Actually metalic arsenic is more water soluble than the organoarsenic metabolites, methylation of metalic arsenic results in bioactive intermediates.

The phrase " The role of these various enzyme activities in the liver is to convert fat soluble toxins into water soluble substances that can be excreted in the urine" in the pdf is incorrect. The general idea that these converted substances are detoxified is often correct but not so for arsenic. The metabolites are highly toxic. Time for another reference, so you don't tell me again that I'm making things up.

People who argue that things are "just a theory" really need to look into scientific terminology before arguing.

I'm not usually a big fan of wiki, but their description is actually really good;
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

What you may like to call a "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis.

I think we need to remember that although the liver does break some neutral substances down into toxic metabolites as referenced by the OP, it also breaks potentially harmful substances down into neutral metabolites and is critical for the breakdown of nutrients into usable forms. I assume this is what the "detox" diets are trying to enhance. With respect, I think claiming that enhancing liver function, assuming such a thing is possible, is qualitatively harmful because of arsenic metabolism is a bit misleading. I think a better question is how do these so called detox diets actually work and what are they doing?

It would be misleading if the pro-cleanse sites and proponents did not specifically state that cleanses helped with detoxification path of the liver for heavy metals. What I have outlined is no more and no less than the detoxification path of arsenic in the liver, the most common heavy metal poison encountered by humans.
Since I do not believe that these cleanses work in up-regulating the detoxification paths of the liver, nor have I seen evidence to support this, I do conceed that a quantitative harmful evaluation would be incorrect. Qualitatively, I am going to hold on to my guns. Anything that increases metalic arsenic absorption in the gut, transport and conversion to an organoarsenic compound or to As(III) is harmful. What I've read on the Toruko incident of arsenic poisoning further supports metabolite bioactivation - cancers occurred in the kidneys and urinary tract from available metabolites.
While you are asking the right question - this thread takes on the approach, fully hypothetical but no more than the claims of the pro-cleanse peplum, of addressing what is going on in the liver, if an enhancement is occuring. I'm raising the bar. I expect further proof that not only is the liver increasing methylation processes (proof 1) but that those processes are also activated to increase renal clearance (proof 2). I'd like to address organometal sequestration in tissues and then have someone explain to me how cleanses chelate essentailly from irreversable enzyme binding in tissues (which account for about 10% of arsenic accumulation) another claim made but frankly I'm not sufficiently clear on the organoarsenic protein binding in tissue.

No one is answering your better question - i'm looking at the details of arsenic and other metal metabolism in the meantime.

A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.

The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)

The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.

NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.

The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.

No. A law is a simple fact that exists universally It can be demonstrated with repeated successful testing, but it is not a former theory that has accumulated enough evidence to become "proven". That is a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Theories can become generally accepted when they have enough evidence behind them, but they never (or are they expected to) become laws. Both are informative and useful in science.

I reject your reality and substitute it with my own.[/b[ A law cannot become a law until it begins as a theory "in principle".

As I was taught:

An observation becomes a hypothesis, A hypothesis becomes an experiment. An experiment is repeated numerous time, while data is collected. Data is analyzed, then conclusions are drawn. The conclusions become a theory, collaborated with others within the scientific community. Scientists set out to DISprove the conclusions, because scientists are more like to attempt to disprove than prove (those pesky scientists!). In their endless attempts to disprove some theoretical concept, they realize that, no matter what they do, or endless numbers of experiments, that theory cannot be disproved. Hence, a law is made that says "IF this is done, then THIS will result, EVERY SINGLE TIME."

The evolutionary process that brought us to our human status has NOT been proven. However, it is pretty much agreed upon that micro-evolution has occurred which is why we have species of animals living in darkened waters that have lost their eyes due to lack of necessity. (just one example of evolution at a micro level). It also helps to explain the de-evolution of the human as evidenced by shows like Honey Boo Boo and The Real World.



That is how it was taught to me and how I understand it to be.

Dropping an apple or object repeatedly was at first a theory, then became a law, based on repeated, identical results. And I think calling it a "theory" now is a misnomer of epic proportions. A LAW is a LAW.

Of course, I'm still upset about the declassification of Pluto's planetary status - those rat *kitten*.

I'd like a liver pate sandwich unfortunately, I'm sitting in California at the moment. Rather than try to nitpick at little things, why not admit that this brings out something you either had not understood, need to look at, or are willing to consider.

As to the As (III), it is one of the most basic metabolites of arsenic found in urine. Since it is the first step of methylation, occuring in the liver. I'm guessing it is leaving the liver. But here is a reference:
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol84/mono84-6.pdf

Also, you mentioned one should filter drinking water. Please be aware that many filters do absolutely nothing to remove arsenic. Choose wisely, if it is an issue (for example, certain well waters).

Peplum also means, in French, a large production film, a type of multicolored vast production of people, from the American/Italian films that had people wearing peplum. I intended its use in that sense -I also hesitated to use "populo" it seemed less to touch on the productive/marketing sense of cleanses. But feel free to challenge my vocabulary, English isn't my first language; however, with respect to cleanses, I invite you to stop the argumentum ad hominem - address the subject, don't try to challenge my vocabulary or whether I'm making up things.

You've gotten dressed down, sans peplum, twice.